State v. Brickel

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Brickel

46 A.2d 416, 142 Me. 67, 1946 Me. LEXIS 11

DecidedMarch 18, 1946

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.2d 416 (State v. Brickel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Brickel, 46 A.2d 416, 142 Me. 67, 1946 Me. LEXIS 11 (Me. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Tompkins, J.

This action of debt against the principal Manuel Brickel and the Maine Bonding and Casualty Company surety on a bond, is before us on general motion.

The bond in form is identical with that considered in the case State of Maine v. James Calanti et al., decided this day. As in that case, it purports to have been given in accordance with the provisions of P. L. 1934, Chap. 301, and acts additional thereto and amendatory thereof, and rules and regulations pursuant thereto.

The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict for the State for the sum of one thousand dollars, the penal sum of the bond. The same points of law were raised by the defendant in his brief as in the Calanti case. The defendant in this case did not raise in his brief or in his argument the question that the verdict was against the evidence and the weight of evidence. Matters not properly raised in the brief or in the argument are considered waived.

Motion overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Tompkins, J.

This action of debt against the principal Manuel Brickel and the Maine Bonding and Casualty Company surety on a bond, is before us on general motion.

The bond in form is identical with that considered in the case State of Maine v. James Calanti et al., decided this day. As in that case, it purports to have been given in accordance with the provisions of P. L. 1934, Chap. 301, and acts additional thereto and amendatory thereof, and rules and regulations pursuant thereto.

The case was tried before a jury which returned a verdict for the State for the sum of one thousand dollars, the penal sum of the bond. The same points of law were raised by the defendant in his brief as in the Calanti case. The defendant in this case did not raise in his brief or in his argument the question that the verdict was against the evidence and the weight of evidence. Matters not properly raised in the brief or in the argument are considered waived.

Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.2d 416, 142 Me. 67, 1946 Me. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brickel-me-1946.